University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


r/ 


LETTER 


OF    THE 


HON.  THOMAS  EWING 


TO 


HIS  EXCELLENCY  BENJ.  STANTON,  f 


LIEUT.    GOVERNOR    OF    OHIO, 


In  Answer  to  his  letter  of  Nov.  4,  Relative  to  Charges  Against  our  Generals 
who  fought  the  Battle  of  Shiloh,  on  the  6th  of  April  1862. 


E.    KEVINS,    PRINTER,    COLUMBUS,  0. 


E-F/  :    UERAR 


LANCASTER,  0.,  Nov.  1, 1862. 

Excellency  BENJ.  STANTON,  Z&w£  Governor  of  Ohio : 

SIR: — I  have  just  received,  in  the  Mac-a-cheek  Press  of  the 
14th  inst,  your  letter  of  the  4th,  and  will  reply  to  it  through 
the  same  paper.  You  express  surprise  that  you  should  be 
singled  out  and  replied  to,  when  so  many  others  joined  in 
giving  currency  to  the  same  charges.  In  this  you  underrate 
the  value  of  your  name  and  official  position.  You  were 
worthy  of  a  reply — the  anonymous  correspondents  of  news- 
papers were  not.  In  one  other  instance,  and  one  only,  I  met 
with  the  name  of  a  respectable  mortal  man  appended  to  the 
charges.  I  addressed  a  letter  to  him,  (he  was  an  editor,)  giv- 
ing such  facts  as  I  then  had  in  contradiction,  which  he  pub- 
lished with  comments,  referring  to  your  report  and  letter  as 
unquestionable  authority.  As  far  as  I  know,  all  the  pub- 
lished accusations,  which  appeared  in  the  papers  for  months 
after  the  battle,  were  founded  on  the  letters  of  anonymous 
correspondents  of  the  press,  and  on  your  report  and  letter. 
You  intimate  that  you  gave  up  the  question  of  surprise  in 
your  letter  to  General  Sherman.  I  do  not  so  understand  it. 
You  waive,  but  do  not  disavow.  It  was,  in  fact,  the  whole 
original  charge,  "  that  the  disasters  of  that  day  were  the  result  of 
surprise,  which  is  justly  chargeable  to  the  commanding  officer." 
"  That  our  lines  were  so  carelessly  and  negligently  guarded  that 
the  enemy  were  absolutely  on  us,  in  our  very  tents,  before  the  offi- 
cers in  command  were  aware  of  their  approach."  If  you  had 
disaowed  this  distinctly,  instead  of  half  admitting  its  false- 


\ l 

4 

hood,  and  at  the  same  time  parading  your  proofs  to  establish 
its  truth,  I  certainly  would  not  have  troubled  you  or  the  pub- 
lic with  the  matter.  But  you  asserted  it  on  what  you  pro- 
nounced sufficient  evidence.  You  say  the  public  mind  is  so 
possessed  with  the  belief,  that  I  (with  such  powers  as  you 
kindly  impute  to  me)  cannot  remove  it ;  and  in  that  state  of 
things  you  propose  not  to  yield  but  to  waive  the  question,  and 
go  on  to  discuss  the  generalship  in  the  encampment  and  on 
the  field  of  battle.  On  this  new  issue  you  call  in  a  new  wit- 
ness,  Col.  Thos.  Worthington.  As  I  decline  the  new  issue 
until  the  first  is  settled,  I  need  say  little  of  the  witness. 
You  say,  in  substance,  that,  under  certain  conditions,  you  are 
in  the  habit  of  departing  from  the  issue  pending,  and  follow- 
ing out  such  new  ones  as  may  be  tendered;  and  present  your 
example  as  worthy  of  imitation.  My  habit  is  different,  and  I 
cannot  change  it.  I  choose,  if  possible,  to  settle  the  questious 
under  discussion  before  I  take  up  new  ones.  I  may  be  wrong ; 
but,  in  my  opinion,  sound  and  definite  conclusions  are  better 
arrived  at  in  that  way,  and  confusion  more  certainly  avoided. 

You  charge  me  with  garbling  Col.  D.  Stewart's  report. 
This  is  not  so.  You  are  misled  by  a  typographical  blunder 
in  punctuation  in  the  official  document,  such  as  often  occurs 
when  the  proof  is  not  revised  by  the  writer,  and  you  would 
have  corrected  the  error  at  a  glance  if  you  had  remembered 
the  rules  on  the  subject,  laid  down  by  the  fathers  of  the  law. 

There  are  two  sentences  out  of  which  the  sense  id  to  be 
elicited — written  together  they  are  : 

"The  disposition  of  my  pickets  was  reported  to  and  ap- 
proved by  Gen.  Sherman  at  7-J  o'clock  on  Sunday  morning 
I  received  a  verbal  message  from  Gen.  Prentiss  that  the 
enemy  were  in  his  front  in  force." 

Now  this  must  be  divided  into  two  sentences.  The  type- 
setter at  Washington,  the  writer  being  a  thousand  miles  off, 


has  done  it  by  placing  the  period  after  the  word  "  morning." 
No  one  who  reads  or  copies  the  paper  should  regard  that  if  it 
involves  an  absurdity.  You  doubtless  know,  for  you  have 
had  more  experience  in  printing  speeches  than  in  planting 
pickets  and  marshaling  armies,  how  much  a  writer  or  speaker 
sometimes  suffers  when  he  finds  himself  in  print,  not  having 
had  an  opportunity  to  revise  the  proof ;  and  that,  most  espe- 
cially, in  the  article  of  punctuation.  The  rule  on  the  subject 
is  well,  though  somewhat  quaintly,  expressed  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  U.  S.  in  the  case  of  Ewing  vs  Burnet,  11  Peters, 
54.  They  say: 

"  Punctuation  is  a  most  fallible  standard  by  which  to  inter- 
pret a  writing ;  it  may  be  resorted  to  when  all  other  means 
fail ;  but  the  court  will  first  take  the  instrument  by  its  four 
corners  in  order  to  ascertain  its  true  meaning;  if  that  is  ap- 
parent on  judicially  inspecting  the  whole,  the  punctuation  will 
not  be  suffered  to  change  it." 

You  will  therefore  see  that,  according  to  the  highest  author- 
ity, I  had  a  right  to  divide  those  two  sentences  according  to 
my  judgment  of  their  true  sense,  and  if  I  could  do  that  with- 
out calling  to  my  aid  the  printer's  punctuation,  I  had  a  right 
to  disregard  it.  And  even  if  you  think,  according  to  your 
notions  of  military  routine,  that  I  mistook  the  sense,  and  that 
the  officer,  who  planted  the  pickets  at  night,  was  regularly 
making  his  report  in  the  morning  after  the  pickets  were  attacked 
and  driven  in,  and  while  the  General  to  whom  he  made  his 
report  was  mounted  with  his  staff  going  to  reconnoitre  the 
advancing  enemy,  you  will  still,  I  think,  admit  that  I  might 
possibly  differ  from  you;  and  I  will  rely  on  you  to  say  to 
the  "  evil-minded  person"  of  whom  you  have  darkly  hinted, 
that  I  kad  a  right  to  believe  that  such  report  was  not  made 
at  that  time  and  place,  and  under  those  circumstances,  and, 
therefore,  that  the  date  did  not  apply  to  the  making  of  the 


6 

report,  but  to  the  message  from  General  Prentiss.  You  will 
say  to  him  also  that  in  copying  it  was  incumbent  on  me  to 
divide  the  two  sentences,  so  as  to  give  what  I  understood  to 
be  the  true  meaning  of  the  writer.  I  divided  the  sentences 
thus: 

"The  disposition  of  my  pickets  was  reported  to  and  ap- 
proved by  Gen.  Sherman.  At  7£  o'clock  on  Sunday  morn- 
ing I  received  a  verbal  message  from  Gen.  Prentiss  that  the 
enemy  were  in  his  front  in  force." 

You  also  find  an  omission  in  my  extract  from  General  Sher- 
man's report.  In  this  you  are  correct,  but  as  it  does  not  affect 
the  same  in  the  slightest  degree,  it  was  hardly  worthy  of  your 
notice.  It  being  a  pleonism,  and  the  sense  not  at  all  changed 
by  it,  I  had  failed  to  discover  it.  The  sentence  in  which  it 
occurs  is  this : 

"  About  8  A.  M.  I  saw  the  glistening  bayonets  of  heavy 
masses  of  infantry  to  our  left  front,  in  the  woods  along  the 
small  stream  alluded  to,  and  became  satisfied  for  the,  first  time^ 
that  the  enemy  designed  a  determined  attack  on  our  whole 
camp." 

The  above,  italicised,  are  the  words  omitted.  Every  one 
acquainted  with  language  knows  that  if  General  Sherman 
"became  satisfied"  at  8  o'clock  of  the  design  of  the  enemy, 
it  was  "for  the  fast  time"  for  he  could  not  then  "  become  satis- 
fied" of  a  thing  of  which  he  was  satisfied  just  before.  So  if 
the  evil-minded  and  suspicious  person  you  refer  to  should 
suggest  anything  to  my  disadvantage  because  of  this,  say  thus 
much  to  him,  and  add  that  the  words  being  wholly  immate- 
rial, neither  adding  to  nor  taking  from  the  sense,  would  prob- 
ably cause  their  omission  by  one  not  an  habitual  copyist.  Say 
to  him  also  that  there  could  be  no  possible  motive  for  the 
omission,  and  that  you,  having  discovered  it,  could  make  no 
use  of  it,  except  to  point  it  out,  and  say  that  it  was  "unfortu- 
nate." 


To  prove  surprise,  you  quote  from  a  book  or  pamphlet 
witten  by  a  Mr.  Stevenson,  who  was  in  the  rebel  army.  It 
was  written  for  sale,  as  was  also  Scott's  Marmion ;  but  neither 
his  account  of  the  battle  of  Shiloh,  nor  Scott's  of  Flodden 
Field,  imparts  absolute  verity.  Neither  could  even  be  allowed 
to  go  in  evidence  in  an  ordinary  civil  action  in  a  court  of 
justice. 

You  say  that  the  difference  between  your  statement  of  the 
distance  which  the  rebels  encamped  on  the  night  of  the  5th — 
"  not  more  than  a  mile  or  a  mile  and  a  half"  and  the  actual  dis- 
tance— a  little  more  than  three  miles — is  immaterial.  I  think 
otherwise.  The  one  is  true,  the  other  is  false — the  truth  places 
his  encampment  beyond  the  distance  to  which,  according  to 
military  usage,  our  pickets  ought  to  have  been  extended — the 
falsehood  within  it.  It  is  therefore  of  the  utmost  importance 
on  the  very  point  in  issue. 

To  make  good  your  assertion,  you  must  not  only  show 
that  the  army  was  surprised  and  slaughtered  in  their  tents, 
but  that  the  Generals,  whom  you  accused,  did  not  use  the 
means  which  were  in  their  power  to  prevent  surprise.  The 
reconnoisance  by  the  two  parties  sent  by  their  Generals,  the 
afternoon  and  night  before  the  battle,  you  tacitly  admit  to  have 
been  sufficient.  They  stationed  six  companies  as  picket- 
guards.  Was  not  this  sufficient  ?  The  largest  number  that 
I  remember  to  have  met  with,  in  casual  reading,  was  seven 
companies ;  and  that  from  an  army  of  one  hundred  thousand 
men.  The  reconnoisance  three  miles  beyond  the  camp,  at  3 
o'clock  A.  M.,  would  seem  to  be  all  that  could  be  devised  for 
additional  morning  watch. 

But  Gen.  Sherman  did  not  know  until  8  o'clock  whether  it 
was  a  mere  demonstration  or  an  attack  in  force.  How  could 
he  know?  He  ordered  his  men  in  line  of  battle,  as  he  would 
have  done  had  he  known  there  would  be  an  attack  in  force, 


8 

gave  word  to  the  Generals  of  divisions  in  his  rear,  and  then 
went  himself  to  reconnoitre.  A  battery  opened  upon  him 
when  at  the  distance  of  500  yards  in  front  of  his  line,  and 
his  Orderly  fell.  The  spot  could  not  well  be  mistaken. 
Such  was  the  preparation  made  to  guard  against  a  surprise ; 
and  I  pronounce  it  sufficient.  Indeed,  how  was  it  possible 
any  one  in  the  camp  could  be  surprised  in  his  tent,  when  a 
sharp  battle  of  outposts  had  been  going  on  for  three  hours? 

You  say  the  surprise  took  place  in  Col.  Hildebrand's 
brigade,  stationed  near  Shiloh  Meeting-house,  on  the  Corinth 
road.  I  am  glad  that  you  for  once  present  a  definite  point, 
for  all  has  heretofore  been  loose  and  floating;  and  here  you 
make  your  case  out  of  a  vague  statement  in  Col.  Hildebrand's 
report,  in  which  he  does  not  intimate  surprise,  but  shows  that 
he  formed  and  moved  forward  to  find  the  enemy,  and  found 
him  300  yards  in  advance  of  his  color  line.  Let  us  look  at 
his  report,  connected  with  his  surroundings. 

The  center  of  Gen.  Sherman's  command  was  the  Shiloh 
Meeting-house,  on  the  Corinth  road;  and  just  in  the  rear  of 
this  was  his  marquee  or  tent.  Col.  Buckland's  brigade  was 
on  his  right;  Col.  Hildebrand's  on  his  left;  the  left  wing  of 
one  and  the  right  wing  of  the  other  resting  on  the  road, 
equally  advanced.  Col.  Buckland  on  his  side  of  the  road 
was  not  surprised.  Between  6  and  7  o'clock  he  was  informed 
that  our  pickets  were  fired  upon.  He  immediately  formed 
his  brigade  on  color  line  (right  up  to  Col.  Hildebrand's  right, 
at  the  road).  Hearing  that  the  pickets  were  being  driven  in' 
he  ordered  Col.  Sullivan  to  advance  in  support  of  the  pickets, 
which  he  did,  but  discovered  that  the  enemy  had  advanced 
in  force  to  the  creek  about  80  or  100  rods  in  front  (where  Gen. 
Sherman  saw  them  on  his  reconnoisance  at  8  o'clock);  he 
then  ordered  the  brigade  to  advance,  marched  thirty  or  forty 
rods,  discovered  the  enemy,  and  opened  fire  upon  him.  This 


9 

took  place  on  Col.  Hildebrand's  immediate  right.  Farther 
on  his  right  was  McDowell,  with  the  1st  brigade.  At  the 
first  alarm  in  the  morning,  he  formed  ;  detached  two  compa* 
nies  to  defend  a  bridge  ;  at  8  o'clock  his  line  was  thrown  for- 
ward to  the  brow  of  the  hill ;  a  residue  of  the  mortar  battery 
brought  up  and  planted,  and  fired  several  shots  on  the  enemies 
masses  not  then  in  line.  On  Col.  Hildebrand's  left  was  Col. 
Stewart,  with  the  2d  brigade  ;  he  was  not  (as  you  read  him) 
reporting  to  Gen.  Sherman  the  planting  of  pickets,  which  had 
been  driven  in,  but,  at  7£  o'clock,  in  his  place  at  the  head  of 
his  brigade,  received  a  verbal  message  from  Gen.  Prentiss 
that  the  enemy  was  in  his  front  in  force.  Soon  after,  his  pick- 
ets sent  in  word  that  a  force  with  artillery  was  advancing  on 
the  back  road ;  and  in  a  very  short  time  he  discovered  the 
Pelican  flag  advancing  in  the  rear  of  Gen.  Prentiss'  head- 
quarters. He  arranged  his  men,  went  to  a  convenient  point, 
and  saw  the  enemy  attempting  to  plant  a  batterj  ;  which  having 
succeeded  in  doing,  "they  opened  a  fire  of  shell  upon  us,"  prob- 
ably the  same  of  which  Col.  Hiidebrand  opeaks  in  his  report. 
Now  where  was  Col.  Hiidebrand  while .  the  regiments  on 
his  right  were  forming  and  moving  to  the  attack,  and  Col. 
Stewart's  regiment,  on  his  left,  was  formed,  and  maneuvering 
to  meet  the  enemy  to  advantage?  He  tells  us  plainly  enough. 
He  formed  and  moved  forward  also,  and  met  the  enemy  300 
yards  from  the  color  line.  You  make  him  say  in  his  report 
what  he  never  intended  to  say,  and  never  in  fact  said,  by  con- 
fining his  statement  to  the  order  of  time,  which  it  does  not 
follow ;  but  Gen.  Sherman  was  on  the  Corinth  road,  between 
Col.  Buckland  and  Col.  Hiidebrand,  as  you  say,  quietly  re- 
ceivirg  a  report  from  Col.  Stewart  at  7-J-  o'clock ;  while  you 
also  say,  the  enemy  was  peppering  Hiidebrand  with  their 
grape  and  shells  right  by  his  side — neither  Gen.  Sherman  nor 
Col.  Buckland  nor  Col.  McDowell  knowing  anything  of  it. 


10 

In  truth,  from  that  point  between  Buckland  and  Hildebrand, 
then  drawn  up  in  order  of  battle,  Gen.  Sherman  and  his  staff, 
at  7£  o'clock,  rode  in  front  500  yards  to  reconnoitre  the  ene- 
my— perceived  that  they  were  advancing  to  attack — returned 
and  gave  orders  along  his  line,  which  advanced  to  meet  the 
enemy. 

You  say  that  the  testimonials  of  the  officers,  who  fought  on 
the  7th  and  not  on  the  6th,  which,  in  your  letter  to  Gen. 
Sherman,  you  tauntingly  invoked,  are  none  of  them,  except 
that  of  Gen.  Eosseau,  to  the  point  in  issue.  Surely  you  mis- 
take. Every  one,  except  Gen.  Nelson,  covers  the  whole 
ground;  the  conduct  of  Gen.  Sherman  on  the  day — the  whole 
day  of  the  battle.  Gen.  Halleck's  last  note,  after  he  had  re- 
ceived the  accusations  of  Col.  Worthington,  which  you  intro- 
duce with  so  much  circumstance,  goes  to  Gen.  Sherman's 
whole  conduct  while  under  his  command.  An  "evil-minded 
and  suspicious  person,"  if  this  correspondence  should  be  read 
by  such,  might  possibly  think  that  you  never  heard  an  ex- 
pression of  opinion  from  any  of  the  officers  referred  to,  but 
ventured  the  reference,  relying  on  the  jealousy  which  military 
men  too  often  feel  toward  each  other. 

In  your  letter  to  Gen.  Sherman  you  call  attention  to  your 
taste  and  style,  of  which  you  are  justly  vain.  Bold  and  origi- 
nal, you  do  not  confine  yourself  to  the  dull  matter  of  fact  of 
common  prosers,  but  indulge  in  flights  which  would  do  credit 
to  an  epic  poet.  To  prove  this,  one  example  will  suffice 
You  characterize  as  a  veteran  of  undoubted  courage,  a  cow- 
ardly scamp  who  was  never  in  but  the  one  battle,  and  who 
ran  at  the  first  fire.  You  say  he  cut  his  way  through  the 
enemy.  A  mere  vulgar  proser,  without  taste  or  stjle,  would 
say  lie  cut  and  ran.  You  call  him  "scar-worn"  This  is 
original — according  to  common  thought  and  common  speech 
war  wears  soldiers  and  they  are  war-worn ;  care  wears  men 


11 

and  they  are  care-worn.  Soldiers  when  their  wounds  have 
cicatrized  wear  scars,  the  scars  do  not  wear  them.  But  you 
are  not,  why  should  you  be,  bound  by  dull  common  usage, 
when  by  new  phrase  you  could  so  happily  enrich  our  lan- 
guage. But  whence  the  scar  that  wore  your  veteran  ?  Not 
from  Shiloh,  for  the  wounds  inflicted  there  had  not  had  time 
to  cicatrize.  But  I  feel  that  it  is  impertinent  to  criticise  such 
a  fine  flight  of  fancy,  especially  when  we  find  his  clothes 
riddled  with  grape  and  cannister.  You  do  not  name  your 
Hero — this  was  judicious — but  you  were  unlucky  in  selecting 
the  regiment,  or  State  to  which  you  assigned  him,  or  in  assign- 
ing him  to  any  regiment,  or  State  at  all.  Scar -worn  veteran 
would  have  been  designation  enough,  and  its  broad  generality 
would  have  baffled  impertinent  inquiry. 

Like  Homer,  who  also  excelled  in  taste  and  style,  when  you 
introduce  your  Heroes  by  name,  you  give  their  genealogy. 
You  show,  among  others,  that  Col.  Thos.  Worthington  is  well 
descended.  So  he  is,  poor  fellow,  very  well,  and  well  con- 
nected; but  this  would  not  have  justified  Gen.  Sherman, 
knowing  him  as  he  did,  in  giving  him  command  of  a  Brigade — 
nor  especially  in  surrendering  to  him  the  command  of  the 
Division  to  which  in  moments  of  high  exaltation  he  consid- 
ered himself  entitled  as  Senior  Graduate.  You  say  that  Gen. 
Sherman,  by  his  oppressive  conduct,  compelled  Col.  Worth- 
ington to  leave  the  service.  You  have  shown  no  warrant  for 
this  accusation — none  for  the  statement.  Was  it  not  a  court 
martial  and  not  Gen.  Sherman,  that  prevailed  on  him  to 
leave?  You  are  fully  advised,  and  I  ask  for  information. 
I  have  no  doubt  Gen.  Sherman  was  kind  and  patient  and  for- 
bearing towards  Col.  Worthington,  as  far  as  he  might  be  con- 
sistently with  his  public  duty,  surely  no  further. 

You  take  great  pains  to  impress  the  public  with  the  belief 
that  Gen.  Sherman  is  rough  and  rude  and  churlish  to  officers 


12 

and  men  under  Ms  command.  This  cannot  be  so  unless,  as 
in  the  wild  story  of  the  German  student,  he  has  exchanged 
souls  with  some  one  very  unlike  himself.  It  cannot  be  so. 
The  shout  which  arose  from  his  old  legion  when  they  met 
him  on  the  battle  field  of  Shiloh,  was  a  tribute  coming  from 
the  heart,  such  as  is  never  paid  except  to  a  leader  who  is  kind 
and  generous  as  well  as  brave.  So  much  for  his  men.  Now 
hear  what  the  officers  of  the  first  Brigade  under  his  com- 
mand say  of  him.  The  remarks  below  were  made  on  a  sword 
presentation,  reported  in  a  late  Memphis  Bulletin : 

"  A  MERITED  TESTIMONIAL. — On  Thursday  evening  last  the 
field  and  staff  officers  of  the  first  Brigade,  General  Morgan  L. 
Smith  its  comander,  being  in  the  company,  made  a  call  upon 
General  Sherman,  when  Colonel  Stuart,  in  neat  and  suitable 
terms,  expressed  the  esteem  the  General's  brother  officers  felt 
for  his  character  as  a  sterling  gentleman,  wanting  nothing  of 
the  courtesies  and  high  qualities  that  term  includes — and  of  his 
conduct  as  an  officer,  brave  in  the  face  of  the  foe,  affable  in 
official  intercourse,  chivalrous  and  self  sacrificing  as  a  patriot, 
and  abounding  in  those  amenities  and  generous  sentiments  that 
dignify  life,  make  intercourse  agreeable,  soften  the  asperities 
of  the  necessary  routine,  and  throw  a  halo  of  kindly  charity 
around  a  character  never  austere,  but  always  ready  to  cultivate 
the  graces  that  adorn,  and  the  pure  pleasures  that  ameliorate 
the  toils  of  the  soldier's  career.  Those  who  approached  him  on 
the  present  occasion  had  witnessed  his  deeds  on  the  field,  a 
observed  his  official  action  under  circumstances  of  difficulty, 
where  sound  judgment  and  temperate  councils  were  necessary, 
and  have  never  found  him  wanting." 

I  am  unwilling  to  part  with  you,  but  fear  you  will  again 
count  my  pages.  We  naturally  tire  of  long  papers,  not 
written  by  ourselves. 

I  am  very  respectfully  yours, 

T.  EWING. 


45  6 


